Thursday, April 28, 2011

Pepsi Boycott Announced by Prolife watchdog group COG for Life

Every time we think our culture can't get any more depraved, along comes another story which should make us all think back on the not so distant Nazi Germany holocaust and its evil Dr. Mengele. Thanks to Children of God for Life and Lifesitenews for getting this Frankensteinian story into the news!

"LARGO, Florida, March 29, 2011 ( – Pepsico, Kraft Foods, and NestlĂ© are among the corporations partnered with a biotech company found using aborted fetal cell lines to test food flavor enhancers, according to a pro-life watchdog group.

The internationally recognized biotech company, Senomyx, boasts innovation and success in “flavour programs” designed to reduce MSG, sugar and salt in food and beverage products. Senomyx notes their collaborators provide them research and development funding plus royalties on sales of products using their flavor ingredients.

Pro-life watchdog group, Children of God for Life (CGL), has called upon the public to target the major corporations in a boycott, unless the company ceases to use aborted fetal cell lines in their product testing."

More . . .

According to COG for Life, President Debi Vinnedge, several food conglomerates have already decided to sever their ties to this horrific practice, but Pepsi has their heels dug in.

If your family objects to using aborted fetal cell lines for taste testing, can you do any less than forgo these products, whilst such evil practices remain in effect?

To listen to Bob Enyart Live's interview of Debi Vinnedge, go here.

Kent Snyder, CEO
4767 Nexus Centre Drive
San Diego, California 92121

Jamie Caulfield, Sr.VP
PepsiCo, Inc.
700 Anderson Hill Road
Purchase, NY 10577

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Circus Erupts at Denver's Planned Parenthood Death Camp!

A Circus Erupts, Planned Parenthood Theatens to Arrest a Patron and A
Baby is Saved
~ Jo Scott ~ Prolife Colorado

No child killing with tranquility is an idiom that Denver pro life sidewalk counselors live by.

Increasing social tension at abortion mills is always a good thing. Usually it’s the pro life movement that calls attention to the perversion of Planned Parenthood. But that’s not so at the Denver Planned Parenthood abortion mill. It seems that the retired police officers that work as security guards during the hours that the abortionists are killing can’t resist calling the police.

The “Frosty Felon Caper” comes to mind. That is the day that was so cold that the tarp on the fence around Planned Parenthood frosted over. Sidewalk counselors wrote things like “Stop killing kids"and "Mommy I want to live” in the frost on the tarp.

Security guard and retired Denver retired police officer Dennis Anaya called the police to report the destruction of the tarp surrounding the killing grounds. That day 10 squad cars arrived on the scene and the circus began.

Fortunately, after an hour Frosty the snowman would not press charges, so the citation for destruction of private property that was issued by the district 2 police department was revoked less than thirty minutes after it was issued.

Today, Planned Parenthood security guard Ron Pringle unsuccessfully tried to confiscate the pro life information handed to a young man as he entered the mill parking lot. Pringle, a retired Denver police officer, told the young male patron that he would not be allowed in the building with pro life information in his pocket. The young man ignored Pringle and entered the building. Furious, security guard Pringle called the police on the Planned Parenthood client. Six squad cars immediately arrived on scene to arrest Planned Parenthood’s client for not allowing Pringle to confiscate his personal property and entering the building. (You just can’t make this stuff up!)

While the circus erupted outside the killing center two young women walked out of Planned Parenthood’s parking lot to ask for help. Laura was scheduled to have an abortion. She thought that she had no other choice but to abort her child because her husband is out of work and she has three other children. Sidewalk counselors were able to convince her that there is help available and she decided to keep her child. So while Mr. Pringle was busy trying to have one of Planned Parenthood’s patrons arrested, a baby was saved. Mr. Pringle in his relentless pursuit of perversion, missed his chance to intimidate the two women and force them into the mill to kill the child.

Instead, Laura and Maria, her friend, left the mill and went to the Riverside Baptist Crisis Pregnancy Center for help. Praise God!!!!!!

Planned Parenthood decided not to press charges on the young man with pro life literature in his pocket and he was released. So much for "Choice".

Friday, April 22, 2011

A Tale of Two Women

America's worldly media is abuzz this week that Time Magazine has included Cecile Richards, head of evil Planned Parenthood in their top 100 most influential people list. For all the glamour, glitz and fanfare it seems like a real badge of honor for the "proud mother of three." As Time notes, "To watch Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards at work is to see a portrait of grace, intellect and determination. Her family believes that public service is a noble calling; her mother, the remarkable Ann Richards, taught her that social justice is a cause worth fighting for. And Cecile has dedicated her abilities to progressive causes.

How the magazine can ignore the plight of the slaughter of the innocents while claiming Cecile is fighting for social justice, remains a mystery. Thank you, Bryan Kemper for reminding us that Social Justice begins in the womb!

But Time continues their effusive praise, "Cecile is a tenacious organizer, talented at both inside maneuvering and outside mobilization. She always wins. She leads with diplomacy and makes her case with facts, not hyperbole. That's what I saw when she served as my deputy chief of staff; that's what the nation sees as she leads Planned Parenthood."

Of course the stubborn facts unveiled by Live Action revealing PP's cover up of child sexual assault have been airbrushed from her story, along with her organization's founding mother's eugenic and racist past.

The eugenics facination of Margaret Sanger led her contemporaries to call her Hitler in a skirt.

If we follow that bunny trail back through history we can find the story of another woman who Time Magazine likely never saw fit to have on a list of most influential people.

Corrie Ten Boom lived in Harlem Holland during the Nazi reign of terror responsible for the deaths of over a million european Jews. According to some she was a Dutch savior ~ "But she did not only become a pioneer craftswoman. It is possible that she was the first woman to head a resistance movement against the Nazis in her country.


When she was 48 years of age, on seeing what was happening in Holland under the national-socialist regime -especially the unrelenting persecution of Jews- she decided that she had to do something about it. She then devised a way to assist them, an idea that met at once with her father’s and brother’s approval. In this manner she could ”resist” the Nazis, but in ”her” particular way, without violence, fully in agreement with her Christian principles and belief."

Corrie didn't have tax payer funding, she didn't have polished organizational skills and a fawning media eager to give her access to promote her cause. What she did have was love in her heart for the innocent and a love for the Lord and His chosen people.

She came up with an idea, "A hiding place measuring 2.5 m long by 0.70 m wide was built in Corrie’s own bedroom, on the second floor of the building. The entrance was hidden behind a wardrobe and the available space could make room for a maximum of six persons simultaneously, all of whom had to remain in a standing position without making any movement."

Like the saints on the front lines of today's modern death camps, like pro-life heroine, Jo Scott, Miss Ten Boom counted the cost and put it all on the line to help her fellow man.

And so I invite you to ponder which you would rather be ~ honored by a slick internationally read and influential magazine or, known by the saints and the Lord as a lover of souls, willing to put your life on the line to save the least of these.

On this Good Friday, as we reflect upon the sacrifice of Jesus Christ who paid the price for us to be savior of all humanity, may we pray for a moment for those who need him most.

"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin." Luke 17:2

Friday, April 08, 2011

The 99 or the one ?

To all:

Christ points to the allowance God made for the hard heart that results from man's self-willed nature (i.e., our nature as we understand it, affected by the consequences of replacing God's assessment of the knowledge fit for our consumption with our own, as Eve did). But He does so in the course of forbidding us to abandon respect for the truth of our nature as God understands it, ("what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.") On account of the Grace of God accessible to us through Christ, we are freed from the bondage of our self-willed nature. Christ's presence enjoins us to reach for and attain (by the Grace of God in Christ) the perfection of our God willed nature. "And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

Andrew Longman's position implies that in the world today, this is an unattainable standard. If this is his belief, his disagreement is not with me. I too often wrestle with the challenge of Christ's standard of perfection, as I'm sure we all do. Christ insists that God be our standard of perfection, and by His ministry (His life, passion, and resurrection) He gives that standard to us. Yet His reference to publicans reminds us that He sees righteousness in the example of a publican who prays "God be merciful to me, a sinner." And in the Lord's prayer He teaches us, when in prayer, always to seek God's forgiveness for our trespasses. In this way He instructs us never to pray without recalling our imperfection, our inability by ourselves perfectly to attain the aim of God. Yet, notwithstanding this persistent fact, He commands us to be perfect, as God is.

This seems like a contradiction. But only if we forget that it is Christ who speaks to us- Christ on whom God has laid our iniquity, but through whom, by the same token, He makes available the Grace which saves us from it. Thus the command of perfection makes sense only when we realize that our perfection or imperfection depends not on us but on God and Jesus Christ. Relying upon Christ and not ourselves alone; trusting in (i.e., having faith in) God and not ourselves alone, the perfection of God comes within our reach, by and through the reality of Christ's transformation of our lives.

From Christ we derive the freedom to take God's standard upon ourselves- something that, absent Christ's commanding presence in our lives, we could not presume to do. Is this not the vital core of the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free? (Galatians 5:1) Truly Christ frees us from the dominion of sin. Otherwise we end up accepting, perforce, the world's imperfection as the defining limit of our perfection. Instead of aiming to do right as God intends, (an aim which Christ makes possible for us even in our world as it is), we aim only to limit wrong, in a way that, de facto, abandons God's intention. This is the melancholy prudence that characterizes all the arguments Andrew Longman has presented.

Unfortunately, once we accept this understanding of prudence, we cease truly to seek the kingdom of God, i.e., to live as in the place of God's dominion. On the excuse that we find ourselves in the midst of those who submit to the dominion of unrighteousness, we agree to aim at doing only as much of right as that dominion allows. But if we find ourselves acting in this way, we are not excused. We are lost.

Can we excuse this mode of operating under the dominion of evil with the plea that we are right to do what we are able to do? But with this excuse we tacitly limit our possibilities for action to the imperfection of our nature as we understand it, rather than defining it (as Christ does) in terms of an understanding which reflects (is the image of) the perfection of God with respect to us. But this self-limitation ignores the imperative of Christ, which requires us to be true to the image (persona) of perfection God intends us to be ("in the image and likeness of God created He them." Hence the logic of securing respect for the human person as the strategic aim of the pro-life political cause. Except in practice the law enforces respect for the intrinsic worth of every one's life, the number of the dead loses its meaning.

Where one is worth nothing, a million times one is still worth nothing. But where one reflects God's worth, the worth of every one is beyond counting. So, when we permit ourselves to act as if one is worthless, the worth of all is potentially reduced to nothing. But when we act so as to acknowledge the God intended worth of each and every one, the God intended worth of all is restored.) As transformed by Christ we are called upon to conceive of human capacity in terms that reflect not our own imperfect mind (understanding), but the mind of Christ, who is God with(in) us (Immanuel).

You can say if you like that this is all well and good for Christians, but inappropriate for America's politics. But the prudence that replaces the perfect standard of God's will with subservience to what the world determines to be possible not only contradicts Christ. It also contradicts the principles of the American founding. The Founders explicitly rejected the understanding of right that defined what is possible in terms approved by the prevalence of this or that superiority of human power (might makes right.) Not unlike Christ, they asserted a standard for human conduct based on God's intention for our humanity. They declared the capacity for rights (i.e., actions taken on account of right) as endowed by God, to be a self-evident fact of human nature. They made securing every individual's freedom to demonstrate this capacity (that is, to exercise rights; to put right them into practice) the defining purpose of just human government.

The Founders did not accept the understanding of justice the world generally took (and still takes?) to be within the realm of political possibility. They acted instead on the view that by choice and deliberation, informed and motivated by a common dedication to right action, the American people could do what had until then been thought impossible- establish just, effective government on the basis of politics that respects the consent of the people. The pure Christian understanding of the primacy of God as the standard for human law and action does not therefore exceed or contradict the possibilities of American politics. Rather it epitomizes the understanding of right and justice that made the kind of politics found in America's constitutional, democratic republic conceivable in the first place.

It may be true, as Andrew Longman implies, that it will take a resurrecting miracle to restore that understanding to its rightful place at the head of America's practice of law and politics. But if we let our sin daunted understanding of what's possible determine what we seek to achieve, we will surely remove ourselves from the purview of any such miracles. We will continue our regression toward the idea that government is all about regulating wrongs, and not at all about respecting and preserving God endowed rights.

How can we invite a miracle that only God can perform unless, in our plan of action we hold fast to the principle of God and His righteousness, as America's founders did? By defining our objective in terms of what will win support from the unrighteous we act like the old wing-walkers, who knew better than to let go of one strut until the other was well in hand. But by following their prudence we make clear that in our counsels and strategic deliberations we are unwilling to trust God without reservation. We outwardly proclaim our exclusive faith in Him, but devise and carry out a strategy based on the assumption that no progress can be made unless due sacrifice (in this case quite literally child sacrifice) is offered to the idol of unrighteous power.
Rather than setting our goals to achieve only as much good as evil allows, we should faithfully aim at the mark that God has set for us.

We should therefore act "with firmness in the right as God give us to see the right." As for opening the eyes with which to see this God endowed vision, that surely lies beyond our poor power, especially given the narrow mentality of self-willed, material calculation that passes for expertise in the political world these days. But it is not beyond the power of our faith, not if we resolve to put into practice the motto some are so deliberately trying to remove from our coins: In God We Trust.

Rather than being content to do all that we think we are able to do, shouldn't we strive to do all that our trust (faith) in God makes possible for us. Then, our faithful actions will be the certain trumpet wherewith God prevails upon America's heart to return to America's creed. Christ made clear that such perfect trust (complete faith) in God can move mountains. But when we base our plans on the assumption that, without help from unrighteousness, this faith (trust) alone (sola fide) will not move America's heart, is our trust (faith) in God really complete (perfect)?

Alan Keyes

Thursday, April 07, 2011

Countering Keyes ?

To the movement -

Let me offer this reply to Alan Keyes' excellent exposition, in rebuttal.

I do affirm my love for you Alan, for your work, your years, your intellect,
and your towering oratory and defense of the unborn. I find it amusing that
a smaller person such as myself would ever be in a position to correct such
a great master. Yet, only Nixon could go to China; strange things happen.

I know that you will recieve it in the spirit of intellectual purity in which
it is offered, with malice towards none, and I look forward to your thoughts.

warm regards, Christian love,

Dear beloved Alan, Janet,

First let me state how much I hold you both in high regard and personal Christian love. Second, let me reply to Alan, to Janet, and along with that reply speak to the Bob Enyart position, and my many friends among them. This letter is directed to you personally, but also to the movement, so I will use appellations.

I am an abolitionist. Keyes and Enyart rightly support the moral principle that any law which ends, “and then you can kill the baby” is trespassing “thou shalt not murder”. Keyes makes cogent moral argument for obedient Christian observance, and the Enyart position, that pro-lifers should not rest until complete abolition (from conception) is law, is also correct.

But yes, Janet Porter, you can add my name to the list of support for the heartbeat law.

Why? Intellectual dissonance? Moral confusion? Personal compromise? No.

Alan asks, “This law informs the governed that it is lawful and therefore permitted to murder human beings with no detectable heartbeat. Since America's founding principle is that we are all created equal, from what ground of principle do we derive the justification for this fatally invidious distinction?”

First, the law makes it illegal to murder human beings with a detectable heartbeat. It does not legalize whether human beings without a heartbeat may be killed – the federal law does that. The distinction is minor, but the legality of abortion is due to previous court precedent, not this law. This law does not end, “and then you can kill the baby.” Roe v. Wade and the SCOTUS ends that way, and we are all doing all we can to take power from that existing “law”. Yet this is not the thrust of my reply.

The crux of Keyes argument is that killing the baby under any circumstances is immoral, contrary to Godly principle, and therefore any law which allows it is also immoral and contrary to Godly principle. Further he argues that the existence of any such law which is less than righteous requirement of God corrupts the hearers, and a moral people advocating such a law are corrupted themselves, both morally and politically. It’s a great argument. I was persuaded by it for a long time. Studying the Holy Bible I have come to see it is slightly inaccurate.

More . . .

Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Provoking Responses -- the latest crime

Mike Martin ~ Greeley, Colorado

The most recent attempt by Planned Parenthood to stop pro-life sidewalk counselor Jo Scott from saving babies isn't just another in a long series of of attacks on Jo Scott. It is also a spurious assault on the First Amendment..

In an April 4 trial, Scott was accused of "hindering access" and "harassing" a woman who was attempting to enter a "healthcare facility." The complaining witness was going into the Denver Planned Parenthood during the time abortions are performed and Jo approached her to offer an alternative.

The trial took several strange turns as prosecuting attorneys attempted to convince the jury that Scott touched her accuser while trying to convince her not to enter Planned Parenthood. The attorneys then produced a video of the episode that clearly showed their claims were unfounded. Defense testimony by Leslie Hanks and Leo Mantei, both of whom were eyewitnesses to the incident, confirmed what was obvious on the video. They also refuted the complainant's claim that Jo Scott called her names.

To Jo Scott being lied about and falsely accused is nothing new. But in this trial, prosecuting attorneys did something never before attempted in a courtroom this side of Moscow. Since the claims they were making about Jo Scott touching or calling the complainant names were obviously untrue, they focussed their closing argument on the contention that calling abortion murder is a distasteful affront and likely to "provoke a response." And that, they claim violates a Denver statute.

If the case against Jo Scott sticks, anyone carrying a sign that says, "abortion kills children" or displaying a poster showing the results of abortion could be accused of conveying a message likely to "provoke a response." Consequently, presenting the truth about abortion would essentially become illegal since any communication about the subject might "provoke a response."

Back in the good ol' days when lawmakers respected the First Amendment, if someone's words provoked a response, the response had better also be in words. If the responder resorted to violence, he was the one breaking the law. The implication of a law against using words that might provoke a response is that exercising free speech makes you somehow responsible for the other party's lack of self-control. Bad precedent. People are responsible for their own behavior, including how they react to free speech.

The abortion industry has long sought means to outlaw the efforts of anyone attempting to save babies -- to use the color of law to subdue their opposition. Of course, Jo Scott is their favorite target since, over the years, she has convinced at least 1000 mothers not to abort their babies. If the average fee for those abortions was $300, Jo has cost the abortion industry around $300,000. Small wonder she frequently finds herself falsely accused.

Has it occurred to the legislators who write such ridiculous laws that killing the unborn is distasteful and likely to provoke a response?

The jury will decide Jo's case April 5. Keep her in your prayers. While you're at it, keep our country in your prayers. God judges nations that sacrifice children. It provokes a response.

Sunday, April 03, 2011

Heart Beat Bills or Personhood ??

This past week, a number of pro-life activists received a request from good friend Janet Folger to be signatories to a Heart Beat bill, which would ban abortion for babies with a detectable heartbeat. To say quite the firestorm has ignited, is an understatement. That said, some of the responses have been incredibly thoughtful and have added to the public discourse some excellent analysis about why many feel like the Heart Beat bill should not be supported.

I told Janet, who I revere greatly after spending many hours fighting for Terri by her side, that her bill would directly violate the Colorado RTL mission which states, "defending human life, from the beginning of biological development."

One of the most phenomenal replies the request inspired was by my presidential choice in 2008, Dr. Alan Keyes!

Enjoy . . .

Dear Janet:

Like others I cannot add my name to the list of those supporting this bill.

I understand why good hearted people might accept a perilous moral calculus that I also once accepted. I too made mistakes re matters like this in the past. But here is the gist of the points that convicted me of my error:

a) Christ said, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." The bill draws a line. On one side of the line are those whose unalienable right to life will be respected. On the other, are the less developed humans whose unalienable right to life will not be respected. In His mother's womb, Christ was in their same condition. Do His words therefore not apply to them?

b) Whether we acknowledge it or not, the law informs the moral sensibility of those it governs. This law informs the governed that it is lawful and therefore permitted to murder human beings with no detectable heartbeat. Since America's founding principle is that we are all created equal, from what ground of principle do we derive the justification for this fatally invidious distinction? But if we acknowledge that the principle is violated, then the bill achieves the stated objective (saving some lives) by surrendering the principle that requires respect for life. But that surrender of principle corrupts the understanding of right and wrong of those subject to the law. On account of this misunderstanding they are more likely to do that which God abhors. Thus the bill literally poses an obstacle to their salvation, but also to the salvation of all those who knowingly join in supporting the act that misinforms them. It is scandalous, in the literal sense of the term.

c) Given this spiritual harm, you inaccurately portray the objective the bill aims to achieve. The bill saves the physical lives of some people, but it risks the lives (in the truer, spiritual sense of the term) of all those subject to and responsible for it. If we support this act are we not like those the Apostle speaks of (Romans 3:8) who "(as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), 'Let us do evil, that good may come?' whose damnation is just.'"

d) By the same token, the bill risks the moral and political life of the American people. The principle that all human beings are created equal is the bedrock foundation of the idea of right on which the preservation of that life depends. Unless the pro-life movement defends and preserves that principle the whole basis of its activity in politics is called into question. Our opponents will then claim, with some semblance of justice, that we seek to use the law to impose a strictly sectarian discipline.

Of course, child sacrifice is forbidden under the law in the United States. That prohibition reflects the explicit premise of justice from which the government and laws of the United States derive their claim to legitimacy. That premise asserts that the Creator endows every human being with a right to life that is inseparable from their claim to humanity (unalienable). Except we deny the humanity of the child once conceived, we cannot deny his or her unalienable right to life.

e) The Constitution of the United States requires that a republican form of government be guaranteed in each and every State of the Union. Is that guarantee respected if and when the states are allowed to abandon the republican form of government in principle, through the passage of laws that contradict its fundamental premise? Yet the Ohio law you advocate does just that with respect to the human offspring it relegates to the heartless status of those who may lawfully be aborted. In principle, how does this differ from a law that would permit the enslavement of people whose brain activity falls below a certain level of intelligence? Or the murder of those like Terry Schiavo, whose helpless condition demands constant care? Yet as we all know and have argued, once such murder is permitted, have we not in principle drawn a line that sanctions the murder of helpless infants after birth? Have we not joined Obama and those like him who observe no distinction between abortion and infanticide?

The problem with the sacrifice of principle is that it discards the measure wherewith we measure. The word principle refers, etymologically and conceptually, to that which comes first. In both the Christian faith and the American creed, the first premise of human existence is the Creator of heaven and earth and all of us. So the abandonment of principle refers in the end to the abandonment of our acknowledgment of the existence and authority (authorship) of God. To procure that abandonment is the whole point of the evil that besets us. If we were to reduce the number of abortions in America to just one human offspring, offered each year in defiance of God's will and authority, that point would be made. The true life of our people will be lost. But what do we say of the perfect, God affirming sacrifice of Christ if, by word or action, we participate and lend credence to the sacrifice that denies what He died to prove?